CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP.

and FELIPE DAVID

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC); ARBITRATOR JOSE T. COLLADO and RODITO NASAYAO
G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/28/14 7:19:45 PM
Finish6/28/14 8:16:26 PM
Nature of the Case
A petition for mandamus, prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to annul NLRCs decision dismissing appeal of
petitioners.

Facts
Nasayao claims to have been employed as plant manager with a monthly income equivalent of P 3,000 or 25% net monthly income of
Continental Marble (Continental) [whichever is greater] which he alleged to have failed his three months income sometime in 1974, thus
sought from the NLRC recovery of such unpaid salary. Continental denies such employment status and insists that the relationship is that of
a joint venture and clarified further that the agreement to pay Nasayaos share in the net income is limited if there is any income, and during
those three months, Continental had no such profits to speak of to give Nasayao his share. When the matter was submitted for voluntary
arbitration, Continental challenged the capacity of the arbitrator, but arbitrator refused and rendered judgment awarding money claims to
Nasayao. Petitioner appealed citing labor arbiter for grave abuse of discretion and that the resulting judgment was not supported by
evidence. Nasayao filed a motion to dismiss citing that the Labor Arbiters decision is final [subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies]
and thereafter filed a motion for writ of execution. NLRC dismissed the appeal and ordered petitioners to comply with the earlier decision.

Issue(s)
(1). Can the Court review decisions of voluntary arbitrators?
(2). Is Nasayao an employee?


Held
(1). No, subject to exceptions.

The proper venue is through NLRC, except when a question of law is involved or where a showing of abuse of authority or
discretion in their official acts is properly raised in petitions for certiorari.

On the other hand, Nasayaos contention on exhausting administrative remedies is inapplicable to the case. The Court may review
the decisions warrants jurisdiction or rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Further, his contention that only questions of law and
not findings of fact are cognizable by the Court is unacceptable.

(2). No.

The Court accords respect and finality to the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, but when the same is not supported by
substantial evidence, the Court will intervene. In this case, the finding of Nasayao as an employee of Continental by the Voluntary
Arbitrator is not supported by substantial evidence: (1) It was impossible for Continental Marble to hire a plant manager on account
of its business reverses at the time; (2) he was not included in the payroll nor in the list of employees submitted by the Continental
to SSS; (3) the element of control is wanting for: (a) Nasayao was free to conduct performance of his work; (b) at his own time; (c)
was compensated as a result of his own efforts. And since there was no employment relationship between Continental Marble and
Nasayao, there is no basis for the award of unpaid wages or salaries.